In the globalization process, a
variety of organizations run on an international scale. However, I believe that
these firms should not forget to place more of an emphasis on contributing to
the development of the local societies where they are located in several
aspects.

The first responsibility that
the multinational companies should take is to preserve the local environment. Companies of any size would exert negative influence on the
region's air and water quality by running factories, disposing of waste to the
waterworks or simply using air conditioners. Therefore, it is encouraged that
they are active in placing restrictions on the level of the contaminants released and endeavoring to operate on an environmentally
friendly basis.

Second of all, paying tax on
schedule is also an obligation. The tax money is used to upgrade the public
constructions and regulate the socio-economic activities, thus facilitate
people's life. Accordingly, not paying tax properly, the companies not only
violate the national laws, but also indirectly deprive the inhabitants of a
wide range of benefits they are well-deserved to reap.

Finally, the major global
companies can support the regional communities by creating jobs. Provided with career opportunities at a firm near their homes, the workers can
not only save time and money for traveling but also find it easier to take care of their family.
In a broader view, this action helps reduce the unemployment rate at the area, which boosts the local
economic development in the long run.

In conclusion, I believe that
helping the local communities thrive should be considered a must for the
international organisations, and there are any ways to implement the task.

People have different views
about what kinds of obligation a company should have. While I accept that the
top priority of companies is to generate profits, I believe they should also
have social responsibilities.

On the one hand, I believe
businesses already contribute to society by simply focusing on making
money. The first
reason is that
when companies earn
much profits, they
can expand their businesses, which creates more job
opportunities for people. Some big multinational corporations such as Apple or
Microsoft can be a great illustration. They have been employing hundreds of
thousands of individuals around the
world, which helps to reduce unemployment rates in many countries. Additionally,
when companies make higher profits, they will pay more taxes for the
government. This money can be used to invest in important fields such as
education or health care, which will benefit society as a whole.

On the other hand, I would argue
that apart from making money, companies also need to have social
responsibilities. Firstly, since the rising number of factories these days has
led to serious environmental damage, companies need to take immediate actions
to help protect the natural environment. For example, they could try new
technologies to recycle their wastes instead of disposing of them right away.
Secondly, corporations should also consider helping those who are less
fortunate such as homeless or disabled citizens. This will contribute to better
society and also help to enhance the image of the company or the brand.

In conclusion, although
companies should prioritise the need to make profits, I believe they should
also have social responsibilities.

The movement of organizations
from urban areas to less-developed provinces is a solution to various municipal
problems, but we cannot turn a blind eye to the shortcomings of this trend. The
essay will clarify both sides of the coin, and demonstrate my view that the
benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

On the one hand, it is absurd to
say that an organization can easily move from a major city to the countryside
without suffering any
losses. A change
in terms of
position may cost
a firm, for example, a reduction in the quality of
its workforce. Not every employee is willing to resettle down in a faraway
province, and they prefer seeking
another career in the metropolis to maintain their current living standards.
The enterprise, to handle such risk of brain drain, would have to hire local
workers who are normally less competent. The expenses for their prerequisite
training courses are significant, but
an improvement in
their professional performance
would still not be
guaranteed.

On the other hand, I believe
that the advantages of this scenario are more important. Firstly, such
relocation of organizations can reduce the population density in the urban
areas. As a result, the influx of workers
traveling in rush
hours which causes
traffic congestion would
disappear. Secondly, the movement of companies’ headquarters makes way
for the construction of more residential areas, so the citizens would no longer
have to live in narrow houses and apartments anymore. Finally, factories carry
along with them modern production lines to the suburban areas, hence the rural
population might have access to such cutting-edge technological advancements,
which have been by no means close to them ever.

In conclusion, I believe that
governments should encourage companies to move to rural areas because of the
mentioned considerable benefits.

People
have different views about whether older or younger people are more suitable
for important positions in organizations. While I accept that old individuals
have significantly important qualities, I believe younger ones are more likely
to become good leaders.

On
the one hand, elderly people can be good leaders for some reasons. Firstly, as
old people have worked for many years, they have accumulated much more work
experience compared to younger workers. This might allow them to make wiser
decisions and bring success to the company they work for. Secondly, older
people are often more respected by others. Therefore, they can have a more
powerful voice within the company, and people are more likely to listen to
them. If leaders are young, they might find it hard to influence other
employees.

On
the other hand, I believe it will be better if young people take up important
positions. The first reason is that since young individuals tend to be
physically stronger, they can handle big responsibilities and much work. Being
a leader requires people to work with much pressure, and old people are often
not capable of doing that. Additionally, younger people are usually more
creative, so they are more likely to find newer and better improvements which
benefit the entire organization. For example, a young manager can come up with
a new advertising strategy for a product, which contributes to the increasing
sales of the company.

In
conclusion, while I accept that old individuals can be good leaders of an
organization, I believe these important positions should be given to younger
people.